Iliad p46 (Mertens-Pack 658; P. Cairo Maspero inv. 67172-4 + P. Berol. inv. 10570 + P. Strasb. inv. G 1654 + P. Rein. 2.70)

Text based on the edition of Alexander Loney, after the edition of J.-L. Fournet (1999) [1]
This papyrus codex from the sixth century CE exists in pieces belonging to four separate collections (the Cairo Museum in Egypt, the Königlischen Museum in Berlin, the Bibliothèque Nationale et Universitaire in Strassbourg, and the Institut de Papyrologie de la Sorbonne in Paris). They were joined together by J.-L. Fournet (1997).
Preserved on the papyrus are partial verses from Iliad 1.297–304, 2.494–519, 528–576, 594–614, 631–642, 667–678, 10.372–443, 11.652–683, 689–720, 734–753, and 771–790. We have restricted our presentation of the text and our commentary on the text to the portions from Iliad 10. (See Fournet 1999 for a complete text of the papyrus.) The readings of this papyrus agree, for the most part, with those of the Venetus A manuscript, as we would expect from a witness closer in time to it, but there are some variations (see e.g. 10.380, 10.385, and 10.399).
Note: The spaces between letters should be taken only as an approximation of the gap between visible letters on the papyrus. We have added where possible accents and breathings and some editorial marks, such as punctuation and apostrophes to indicate elision, but we have not supplied a text for the illegible portions of the papyrus.

Commentary

10.372 ἦ̣ [ ]α̣ κ̣[ ] ἐγχος αφηκ̣[ ] See below the textual commentary on the Venetus A manuscript (A) 10.372.
10.373 δ̣[ ]ξ̣ι̣τερόνδ’ ὑπ[ε]ρ ῶμον εΰξου [ ]κωκὴ p46 is in agreement with p425 and A here, against most manuscripts, which have ἐϋξόου. See below the textual commentary on A 10.373.
10.376 χλωρὸς ὑπαὶ δ[ ]ίου[ ] p46 supports the reading of ὑπαὶ δείους (in p425 and most manuscripts, including A), but there are some recorded variations. See below the textual commentary on A 10.376.
10.380 τῶν χ’ ὑμῖν χα[ ]σαιτο p46 read κ’ ὔμμιν (as does A) before being corrected to χ’ ὑμῖν. Most manuscripts have χ’ ὕμμι(ν). ὔμμιν is an Aeolic form (see Chantraine 1988 GH I §126–127), and the double mu makes the syllable long, which it needs to be here. χ’ ὑμῖν is fully Ionic/Attic, with lengthened upsilon and long final syllable. χ’ ὕμμι(ν) combines the rough breathing of Ionic/Attic Greek with the spelling of the Aeolic form. These kinds of variations give us insight into the way that Homeric diction evolved, as Ionic singers took over formulas that had been composed by Aeolic singers. Where possible, the Ionic singers adapted the formulas to their own dialect. See the general commentary on 10.18 and 10.305.
10.385 τίφθ’ The text of this papyrus read πῇ δ’ before it was corrected. (Compare p425 on this line.) A reads πῇ ποῦ δ’. τίφθ’ has some manuscript support (V1). Another variation (recorded as a variation in manuscript C) is ποῖ. Compare the very similar verse at 10.141, where the manuscripts uniformly read τίφθ’. It seems likely that both τίφθ’ and πῇ δ’ would have felt natural to singers of this verse.
10.386 νύκτα δι’ ὀρ̣φ[ ]ν̣, ὁτε θ’ [ This verse, which is also found at 10.83 in the manuscripts, is missing in one papyrus (West 1178), and on this basis West brackets it as an interpolation. It is, however, present in p46, p425, and all manuscripts (p425 and some manuscripts read ἀμβροσίην in place of ὀρφναίην). For its significance within the theme of ambush (and the alternation between ἀμβροσίην and ὀρφναίην), see the general commentary below at 10.41.
10.397–399 See below the textual commentary on A 10.397–399.
10.399 ἀδη̣κ̣[ This is the reading of p46 and most manuscripts. Manuscripts A, B, and E3 have ἁδηκότες. For variation between rough and smooth breathing, see also above on p46, 10.380.
10.413 ]α̣ταλέξω Most manuscripts read καταλέξω, which is also the verb used by Odysseus at 10.384 and 10.405 in all extant witnesses. But D, T, and V16, as well as p425, read ἀγορεύσω here on 10.413. The A scholia say Aristarchus had ἀγορεύσω. For the distinction in meaning, see above on p425 10.413.
10.423 This line in the papyrus seems to be the same formulaic expression as that found in the Venetus A, but see p609 for a multiform.
10.426 See p609 on this line for a variation; instead of the patronymic epithet Εὐμήδεος υἱός that witness seems to have the formula κατὰ δάκρυον εἴβων.
10.431 Poethke restores this line as [και Φρυγες] ι[ππ]ο̣[μαχοι και Μη]ο̣ν̣ε̣[ς ιπποκορυσται. The epithet ἱππόμαχοι is attested here by ten manuscripts, according to Allen (who also prefers that reading here), and is ascribed to Aristarchus by the A scholia (the T scholia also mentions it). The main text of the Venetus A, however, reads ἱππόδαμοι, a much more commonly used epithet. Poethke’s edition of the papyrus shows only the iota and omicron of the word as visible, and his reason for preferring the less common epithet is not evident. Neither possibility need be rejected, however.
10.433–434 p46, p425, and all manuscripts are generally in agreement here, but see p609 above for two entirely different verses in place of what is here 10.433.

Footnotes

[ back ] 1. Although we have based our text on the (as yet unpublished) XML edition of Loney, any errors of rendering or transcription are our own.